So this kid couldn't hose down a mob of people with a couple of rifles.. right.

A person who is highly skilled with a lever-action rifle might be able to do so, but it takes a lot of time and training to get that good. The majority of people are not capable of such a feat. And in any case, whether or not it's possible to do so with a lever-action rifle is not the point. I hope you will at least acknowledge that it is much easier for a person to hose down a room full of people with an automatic weapon, or even a semi-automatic weapon, than it is for them to do so with a lever-action rifle.

I gotta agree here, Brakeman. You bring up a lot of great points, but concluding that its useless to ban assault weapons because a handful of world-class shooters could do as much damage with a more traditional gun is a non-sequitur. That's like saying everyone who owns a guitar will be able to play Eruption.

The amount of skill required to do what the shooters in your videos do is enormous. Not to mention that the type of person who would possess the dedication and discipline necessary to acquire such skill would be extremely unlikely to go on a random killing spree in the first place.

Logged

Providing rednecks with sunblock since 1996.

I once met a man who claimed to be a genius, then boasted that he was a member of "Mesa".

So this kid couldn't hose down a mob of people with a couple of rifles.. right.

A person who is highly skilled with a lever-action rifle might be able to do so, but it takes a lot of time and training to get that good. The majority of people are not capable of such a feat. ..

I gotta agree here, Brakeman. You bring up a lot of great points, but concluding that its useless to ban assault weapons because a handful of world-class shooters could do as much damage with a more traditional gun is a non-sequitur. That's like saying everyone who owns a guitar will be able to play Eruption.

The amount of skill required to do what the shooters in your videos do is enormous. Not to mention that the type of person who would possess the dedication and discipline necessary to acquire such skill would be extremely unlikely to go on a random killing spree in the first place.

The video we were referring to was the lever action shooting that the 13 year old boy starred in. Again, the difference between that boy's rate of fire only and Park's, the Korean guy that I taught how to shoot would have been measured in milliseconds per shot. You simply pull the trigger with the same motion that you close the lever. You bounce the lever against the open stop. Anybody can do it with a few minutes instruction (provided the lever action isn't too stiff - which can be adjusted). The hard thing is to aim while doing it. Yo Yo Ma is a famous celloist but any random 10 year old may be able to move the bow back and forth faster than he. The skill is in directing the furious movement toward an outcome.If I still owned a lever action rifle I would post a video of it. But don't take just my word for it. Stop by any well stocked gun range and ask someone to shoot a 44 or 45 lever action rifle as fast as they can go and record it. Then tell them to bounce the lever against it's stop and trigger upon closing and see the difference. Either way, you won't be able to twitch your toes between the shots.

My point of describing the high rate of fire is not to directly attack the banning of semi automatic weapons using a "rate of fire" criterion. My point was to show that it would be a muddy and lesser effective determination than it appears to novices. Check out this "slide fire" or "bump fire" rifles. They are every bit as fast as full-auto machine guns, but are legal because a trigger pull is technically required between each shot. It gets around the "semi-auto" rule by being able to vibrate against the trigger finger. It's a terrible weapon.

"Assault weapons" is a ill defined term as I said before. Banning for "rate of fire" is a great deal more sensible than "militaristic-y" looking, or just choosing a random brand. But when classifying the guns by rate of fire, whose rate do you use? Mine, a fairly seasoned speed shooter, or yours? If you choose the novice, then guns like the above would get through because you wouldn't know how to get even the "slide" fire gun above to work. If you choose the pro, then even the mid 1800's guns will fail. It's just not as black and white as you would like it to be.

I certainly agree that firearm regulation is not a completely black and white issue, but there must be some criteria which could be agreed upon. As you mentioned in your reply, it wouldn't be prohibitively difficult for the average person to be able to shoot the lever action rifle at a high rate of fire, but to do so with accuracy takes a great deal of practice. Most people would have to decide between speed or accuracy, because they sure as shootin'[1] wouldn't be able to do both.

The biggest issue with guns such as the AR-15 is they immediately give the average person the ability to fire very quickly with decent accuracy, effectively turning anyone with ill intent into a very efficient killing machine. We don't see mass shootings happening via lever action rifle because such a weapon is not so easy to use.

At the very least, as Screwtape said earlier, why can't we just try certain regulations on a trial basis to see if they are effective? If semi-auto weapons were banned and suddenly every nutjob started using lever action rifles to go on killing sprees, then obviously we would have to rethink things. That seems reasonable to me.

I think the key isn't to obsess over banning guns (or components of guns) to begin with. A gun locked up in a gun safe isn't dangerous to anyone, no matter whether it's a Sharps rifle or a machine gun. It still takes someone to pull the trigger or otherwise set it off (even if by negligence). So, teach that person to respect the gun, and show them the consequences of using it foolishly, and they're much less likely to make the decision to use it to kill to begin with.

That isn't the whole solution, of course, but I think it's going to have to be part of it.

I think the key isn't to obsess over banning guns (or components of guns) to begin with. A gun locked up in a gun safe isn't dangerous to anyone, no matter whether it's a Sharps rifle or a machine gun. It still takes someone to pull the trigger or otherwise set it off (even if by negligence). So, teach that person to respect the gun, and show them the consequences of using it foolishly, and they're much less likely to make the decision to use it to kill to begin with.

That isn't the whole solution, of course, but I think it's going to have to be part of it.

I think your sources are a mixed bag and either of us could cherry pick bits out to support our arguments. For example:

Quote

Greater gun availability increases the rates of murder and felony gun use, but does not appear to affect general violence levels.

Self-defense is the most commonly cited reason for acquiring a gun, but it is unclear how often these guns are used for self-protection against unprovoked attacks.

or

Quote

In fact, there are a number of sources that allow guns to fall into the wrong hands, with gun thefts at the bottom of the list. Wachtel says one of the most common ways criminals get guns is through straw purchase sales.

would support my points

this:

Quote

o According to the latest available data, those who use guns in violent crimes rarely purchase them directly from licensed dealers; most guns used in crime have been stolen or transferred between individuals after the original purchase.

is ambiguous. The part about "transferred between individuals" is completely legal in many states. I'm inclined to think the majority of guns used in crime are acquired that way, rather than stolen, as it is a much simpler and easier way to get a gun.

But I'd rather not do that. I'd rather say, it's a mixed bag and highly subject to interpretation. I would like to see congress repeal its taboo on studying gun violence and let the chips fall where they may. I want to do what works. And what we are doing now is not working.

In the absence of reliable data and data-driven policy recommendations, talk about guns inevitably lurches into the unknown, allowing abstractions, propaganda and ideology to fill the void and thwart change.

I think your sources are a mixed bag and either of us could cherry pick bits out to support our arguments. For example:

Quote

Greater gun availability increases the rates of murder and felony gun use, but does not appear to affect general violence levels.

Self-defense is the most commonly cited reason for acquiring a gun, but it is unclear how often these guns are used for self-protection against unprovoked attacks.

or

Quote

In fact, there are a number of sources that allow guns to fall into the wrong hands, with gun thefts at the bottom of the list. Wachtel says one of the most common ways criminals get guns is through straw purchase sales.

would support my points

this:

Quote

o According to the latest available data, those who use guns in violent crimes rarely purchase them directly from licensed dealers; most guns used in crime have been stolen or transferred between individuals after the original purchase.

is ambiguous. The part about "transferred between individuals" is completely legal in many states. I'm inclined to think the majority of guns used in crime are acquired that way, rather than stolen, as it is a much simpler and easier way to get a gun.

"Completely legal", I think, is probably a misnomer. Yes, the private sale of firearms between individuals is currently legal, but some of the buyers are buying illegally, and they know it. Some of the sellers are selling to illegal buyers, and they know it too. So, it's still illegally obtaining the firearm. As are "strawman" purchases. Eliminating the "gun show loophole" goes a long way toward preventing this illegal access to munitions.

I'm not, or at least didn't mean to, suggest that all guns used illegally were obtained by theft.

But I'd rather not do that. I'd rather say, it's a mixed bag and highly subject to interpretation. I would like to see congress repeal its taboo on studying gun violence and let the chips fall where they may. I want to do what works. And what we are doing now is not working.

I understand that folks take pride in their freedoms and feel they shouldn't be punished for the actions of the few. I wouldn't have guns completely banned, but I definitely think they should be regulated. I am talking as somebody overseas and not a resident of the US of course, but I think the issue seems to come down to gun culture more than gun law. Certain types of guns are legal (though regulated) here in the UK and other parts of Europe too, enough for somebody to kill someone be it in rage or self defence, yet, we lack a gun culture, it is not in our advertisements, people who sell guns are few and far between and it's a tiny minority who have guns, probably hence gun crime is so low, we still have violent crime (and we're pretty high in that regard) and some of it can be worse than the US, but we do score much lower for murders and having looked at the stats of other countries there's a similar correlation. It's late, so I'm not about to dig out my stats, but if you want them, I'd be happy to oblige when I am willing to spare more time. Also, I still have the right to own a gun, just like I have the right to drive a car. Both can be (and are used) to kill, cars have a whole bunch of regulations and laws to improve the safety of the driver and the safety of others. Heck, your car has to be fit to be driven by law, if it doesn't pass it's MOT, you can't drive it. Arguably, there's more regulations on cars than there are guns...and guns are the ones that were designed for killing.

To me, it's a terrible sign when there's a tragic killing following gun crime people's responses are along the lines of "somebody else should have had a gun", "there should have been an armed security guard in that school" or "that cinema". I remember seeing somebody trying to argue how in a dark room with lots of people panicking with gunshots fired that somebody, as equally panicked and untrained with a firearm should open fire at the shooter. For me, it's a sign of sad times where people feel guns are a necessary part of their lives - I can understand people wanting guns for sport, but it's worrying when it's for self defence. What worries me more is that schools have metal detectors, it's not the 'concern for a child's safety' that worries me, but the fact that there's enough of a threat that one of those kids might be packing and set loose on dozens of people. It's a totally different thing here, we still get the gun crime and people who use guns for sport or heck, even collect are still able to...my next door neighbour likes going shooting and he enjoys it. It's just telling when you've got a country that very promotes guns so vigorously seems to be also be threatened by it.

I think gun culture is a double edged sword, on one hand it may offer protection for certain situations, it becomes a catalyst for others. I am sure it shouldn't be so easy for somebody to buy a semi-automatic rifle to gun down several people at once. People obviously have a limit because you don't see people walking around with RPG's or driving tanks...I don't see people so frothingly defend their right to 'bear arms' for such arms, yet, when it comes to guns they already legally own, it's about defending civil liberties. So the line is drawn somewhere, so people don't believe in the right to 'bear any arms', in which case the first amendment really shouldn't be used as an argument, instead people will need to find someway of justifying why the line is where it is.

It's all a very difficult situation regardless, I think something should be done in terms of legislation to help reduce the problem, but I don't think it should stop there as where there's gun crime, there's not only a gun but a criminal. Violent crime seems to come more from those with difficult social backgrounds and they need improving, find ways to take away the motive too. Also, try to promote the idea of a gun being used as a tool for self defence less, tone down on the paranoia...heck, pretty much do away with things like Fox News who are brilliant at feeding paranoia.

Obama taking on gun control is a very bold action and it will be a very difficult road for him to walk on, but I hope he's the right man to pull it off.

Logged

“It is difficult to understand the universe if you only study one planet” - Miyamoto MusashiWarning: I occassionally forget to proofread my posts to spot typos or to spot poor editing.

Her sister, Marsha Lanza, was the first one to mention that Nancy Lanza had an interest in survivalist culture.

“Last time we visited with her in person we talked about prepping and you know, are you ready for what can happen down the line when the economy collapses,” Marsha Lanza told a local reporter. According to the Daily Mail, Marsha Lanza said the “survivalist philosophy” helped explain why there were so many guns in her sister’s house.

It does seem like a lot of these gun owners seek out opportunities to actually shoot another individual. It is like a thrill or some sort of high to do so. That is where we have gone as a country. A culture of killing.

Irony is that guy in Texas, the American sniper who has 150+ kills in the wars, getting killed on a gun range. Turns out it is more dangerous at home than at war.

Twice now in the last week (On a Tues and Sunday) our local paper has had a full page ad from "a concerned citizen" listing the mass shootings over the last few years and stating that each one was a result of the person being a "registered democrate". I did not pay much attention to it but now I'm seeing people on line say the same thing. Sounds like something one of those groups like the NRA or Koch Bros would push out at this time with gun control measures coming up for discussion.

Now they just need to make it illegal to propose that that law be repealed (and include a provision making it illegal to repeal the law doing so, in itself), and the law will be shielded for good! Huzzah!

Do these people not realise it's legal to own a gun in the UK (and other countries)? But there are reasons why we're not shooting as many people. One: the strict regulations. Two: there isn't a gun shop on every corner. Three: we lack this paranoid gun culture. Or at least I would suggest it's those 3 things as they're the 3 differences I can see between the two. It's not unreasonable to impose strict regulations, I mean you have to jump through more hoops to drive a car than own a gun, when it should be the other way round because one is meant as a mode of transportation and the other is a device meant to kill others, though both can be used for that same purpose. But the regulations for driving a car reduces the number of people killing others by accident and it also allows an examiner to assess whether somebody is a safe driver or not. Of course you can never assess when somebody's going to purposely murder somebody and at least cars don't have a paranoid culture where people feel the need to run somebody over because they're worried they might be there to steal their corn. Unfortunately, with stricter regulations on guns I don't think it's going to help with that paranoid gun culture, but it would certainly be a start.

With how things work here, we can have people who like shooting guns as a hobby or going hunting not being negatively affected. There's no reason for an established society to have citizens armed to protect themselves, it's that culture that's absurd. Another country with similar gun laws (and culture) to the US is South Africa and like the US, they suffer a higher number of cases of murder and a lot more gun crime and their problem is even worse than the US's.

Murder with firearms in the US: >9000, in SA: >31,000Murder with firearms in the UK: 14, in Japan: 47, in Switzerland: 68

The reason for the countries I've picked is due to their gun law and how guns are viewed. In the US and SA, guns are a part of culture of protection, where a gun is viewed as necessary by some as part of self defence and also where gun laws are relaxed and guns aren't so difficult to acquire.

The UK, we have stricter gun laws, we have done since the 80's, we are guilty of suffering from violent crime too, but we have much fewer murders than the US and SA (SA's is much worse than the US too). But in the UK, you can legally own a gun, however, you need to acquire a gun license. But a gun isn't bought in the UK for self-defence, because it's not necessary and you can't just walk down the street packing. Also, it's not as easy to acquire a gun, we can't just walk into a store a view an arsenal and select a gun like you would selecting a video game.

Japan, is similar to the UK. People generally own guns for hunting and other sport too, not self defence. Gun laws are also stricter.

Switzerland, there is a gun culture, but it is a different kind of gun culture, they are a part of compulsory militia conscriptions and not personal self defence, but like the UK and Japan, if you own a gun you need a legally valid reason to and gun law is similar to that of other European countries. Japan & Switzerland also have lower murder rates.

However, the problem with murder stats is you've got to consider what's legally defined as murder, because killing isn't necessarily defined as murder or even manslaughter. Cases could plea a man innocent if a gun was allegedly shot in self-defence and it was deemed legal to do so, aren't there laws in some states that are like that?

But I don't understand the paranoid notion that somebody needs to own a gun to protect themselves. I understand it to the degree if you live in a rough neighbourhood where guns are already a big problem and people are using them to kill, heck even then a gun could end up doing more harm than good, but I understand why somebody in that kind of situation would want to own a gun. But It will be very difficult for the US to tackle that issue, I'm sure.

However, cases like ones Screwtape has highlighted are highly unnecessary and are born out of people's paranoia that everybody's out to get them and therefore they need a gun to protect themselves...or maybe just an excuse to shoot somebody.

Logged

“It is difficult to understand the universe if you only study one planet” - Miyamoto MusashiWarning: I occassionally forget to proofread my posts to spot typos or to spot poor editing.

To reach US levels of murder by firearm, the UK, with 1/5th of the population, would have to have ~1,800 such murders or 5 per day. These figures above are in rough alignment with this List of countries by firearm-related deathWiki rate of homicides per 100,000 population.

It is an inconvenient truth that, in the UK, the majority of homicides by firearm is committed Black on Black - as it is in the US. Of these UK crimes, the vast majority are drug related. They are drug related because the Black gangs control a very high proportion of the domestic drug trade. (See Operation Trident in the UK - do not visit Wiki, the page is not helpful.) Other players in drug crime are Turks and West Africans - there are no figures for either of these countries, but traditionally they do not use firearms, relying more on brutality.

Back in the US, Race and crime in the United StatesWiki gives a somewhat unclear analysis, but does go into the postulated causes of crime. The US census bureau shows that of 13,000 victims of homicide there were ~6,600 White and 6,500 Black - however, there are 2 considerations: 1. the relative populations work out at 80% White and 13% Black.(from Race and crime in the United StatesWiki 2. The peak ages for being killed are 20 - 35 years and between those ages, it is 5 times more likely that you are dead and male.

A minimum age for a man to be in possession of a gun would therefore seem to be 36 years. I find that to be reasonable.

Let me preface this by saying: I do not currently own a gun, unless you consider a Crosman C11 BB gun to be a gun. I don't. The reason I do not own a gun is that it is currently out of my financial means. However, many of m family members own guns, and I enjoy going shooting. I realize that herein the US, the2nd amendment gives us the right to own and carry firearms.

That being said, what the HELL is wrong with so many gun owners? Why is it not possible for me to go on Facebook and not be bombarded with posts saying "Obama wants to take away our guns! Obama is Hitler! You'll take my guns over my dead body!" (Paraphrasing here a bit, but I can almost guarantee that every American on this site has heard such statements at least once in the past 4 months).

Here's a crazy scenario: What if, at the end of President Obama's second term (remember, he won both the popular and electoral votes, two elections in a row), these same lunatics still have their guns? Can we expect any sort of apology that is anywhere near as genuine as their outrage at a nonexistent problem? I highly doubt it, that would require far too much moral integrity and intellectual honesty which, I am sad to say, anyone who has Ted Nugent as their poster child probably does not possess.

Will they admit that they were wrong? Will they admit that they were duped by the NRA into stockpiling weapons and ammo? Will they realize the negative effect that this has had on our society? Will the NRA themselves publicly apologize, and admit that they have been deliberately stirring the pot and preying on peoples fears in order to stuff their own pockets?

Furthermore, will they same individuals submit themselves for evaluation for mental disorders? Since that seems to be about the only area of agreement between the two sides of this "debate", that those with a history of mental illness should get a second look before they are able to purchase guns, is this really so much to ask? Especially when you consider that, according to the DSM, a great many of these individuals would likely qualify as having a paranoid personality disorder based on the folliwng criteria: 1.Pervasive suspiciousness of being harmed, deceived or exploited: 2. Unwarranted doubts about the loyalty or trustworthiness of friends or associates: 3. Hidden meanings read into the innocuous actions of others: 4. Grudges for perceived wrongs: 5. Angry reactions to perceived attacks on character or reputation:

Note that I left out those symptoms least likely to be relevant in these cases. Can anyone honestly say that a large majority of the most vocal opponents of gun control (i.e. those who say things like "you'll take my guns over my dead body" or those who parade around in public with AK-47s carrying flags that say "Come and take em!" or those who frequently equate President Obama's committment to reducing gun violence in America to Hitler's disarming policies, or those who somehow think that their deer hunting rifle would be effective against M1 tanks and Blackhawk helicopters) would not meet 4 of these criterion? If, in fact, they were determined to be mentally unfit to own a weapon, would they be a "responsible gun owner" and relinquish possession of their firearms and be happily prevented from acquiring them in the future, as they themselves suggest ought to be done in the case of dangerous mental illness?

It also can't help escape my attention that we have heard similar rhetoric before. After President Obama's first successful election, the Ted Nugents and the James Yeagers of America were out in full force, stocking up on as many guns and as much ammo as possible, because "The black guy is going to take our guns from us!" (Note: No such thing occurred during President Obama's first term. False alarm perhaps?). Or after the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban, when the battle cry was "Clinton will take our guns!". To the amazement of no one expect those in need of a strong dose of anti-psychotics, gun owners are STILL gun owners. Imagine that.

Of course, if one even tries to point out that no, the President does not have any plans to take all of your guns away, we are splattered with ad hominems and straw mans and non-sequiturs and and all around pervasive ignorance and paranoia.

In the city where I live, as well as many other cities in the US, there was recently a "Day of Resistance" in which gun owners gathered in Perry Square, the park in the middle of downtown Erie. One of the speakers said that gun owners are open to debate and discussion about guns, saying ""Open, legitimate discussion is how this country came into greatness".

Honestly, who is he kidding? Whenever anyone says "Let's have a discussion about how to reduce gun violence in America", the reaction of the same types of folks attending this rally is always "You'll take my guns over my dead body! Obama is Hitler!". It is also important to note that one of these gun owners was carrying a flag depicting what looks like an assault rifle, with the words "Come and take it!".

How is this embracing "open, legitimate discussion" when their only reaction, EVER, is to gather in public carrying AK-47s and daring people to try to take them away? That would be like the Westboro Baptist Church saying that they are open to discussion about homosexuality while carrying "God hates fags" signs. How can any rational, clear minded person take this seriously? How can it be ignored that members of the same type of crowd are the ones who are just itching to shoot people? How is it that these folks think that the 2nd amendment only means that they have a right to start a revolution if they don't agree with the policies of the current administration? Note that the second amendment says no such thing. Why should anyone who actually wants to have a legitimate discussion about a legitimate problem can't do so because they are justifiably afraid of a gun toting mob?

It can't escape my attention that the only "solutions" offered from that side are more guns, arming teachers, less regulation, no background checks, and overthrowing the government. Who is it that is really trying to have an honest discussion here? Those that also admit that better tracking of potentially dangerous mentally ill persons would be, in my submission, reluctant to admit that man on their side would probably qualify as one of these potentially dangerous mentally ill persons.

And lets not ignore the fact that the most dangerous mentally ill persons are those that have not and are not receiving treatment, and therefore have probably not ever even been identified as such by anyone qualified to do so, and hence would be able to purchase whatever the hell they want.

Yet ANOTHER point that can't escape my attention is that the same crowd that criticizes the President for having armed guards are always the ones who, in not so subtle ways, suggesting that the President is "in season" and making actual threats to kill to the President and others as well. The fact that they are utterly unwilling and incapable of seeing any difference at all in the security level necessary to protect the President of the most powerful country on earth, and the security level needed to protect kindergartners from lunatics like Adam Lanza, suggests to me that the education system has utterly failed them.

Note also that none of this same crowd was upset about Bush's Patriot Act. Oh no, that was just a necessary security measure to protect us from those terrible terrorists. But when President Obama extended for an additional four years certain provisions of this act, the right questioned whether his use of an autopen to approve these measures was constitutional. ARE YOU EFFING KIDDING ME?!?!?!?!

And to bring this all full circle and actually relate it to religion, it also can't help escape my attention that those who most loudly protest any form of gun control are largely the same ones who want this to be a Christian country, who threaten and harass minorities, who wave Confederate flags while calling themselves the "Party of Lincoln" (not sure if this is irony or just tragedy), who want Israel to have sole control of the middle east, and who shoot members of Sikh temples, atheists, and blow up abortion clinics. If one were to make a Venn Diagram of these groups, it would likely be three circles imposed over one another.

Finally, I submit that NONE of these things would even be issues if the discussions about such things were dominated by rational, secular humanists interested in actual honest conversations about real problems. Using paranoia and fear and intimidation and threats in response to imaginary problems is indistinguishable from religion, and it is those tactics that are being exploited by the Ted Nugents of America.

Their response will be just like religion...always an excuse. I imagine it being something like this..."because we were strong and stood with the NRA Obama had to back down and his plan was stopped, but we continue to be vigilant in the face of government oppression".

Also, I had to share this. I heard it while driving on I29 the other day. Seems a guy got shot in the leg when his dog bumped the gun in the seat of his pickup and it fell on the floor of the pickup and went off. They guy said he did not even know it was loaded. Responsible gun owner or his dog standing his ground...take your pick.

Their response will be just like religion...always an excuse. I imagine it being something like this..."because we were strong and stood with the NRA Obama had to back down and his plan was stopped, but we continue to be vigilant in the face of government oppression".

I would not be at all surprised if this was the case. A completely manufactured and dishonest assessment of what actually happened. I suppose if we don't set the bar too high for these folks, we wont be disappointed. Orcs will, after all, behave like orcs.

Quote

Also, I had to share this. I heard it while driving on I29 the other day. Seems a guy got shot in the leg when his dog bumped the gun in the seat of his pickup and it fell on the floor of the pickup and went off. They guy said he did not even know it was loaded. Responsible gun owner or his dog standing his ground...take your pick.

Wow, that is just pathetically stupid. It reminds me of the accidental shootings by supposedly "responsible" gun owners at gun shows recently. I realize that accidents will happen, because we don't live in an ideal world, but I submit that someone being accidentally being shot by their freaking DOG because they were too stupid to realize that their gun was loaded is not, in fact, an accident. If a so called "accident" could be prevented by a minimum level of responsibility and intelligence, it is no really an accident. That's why it bothers me when, for example, a person runs a stop sign and hits a car, it is called an "accident". No, it is an entirely predictable and preventable outcome of running a stop sign.